Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Arizona is currently slated to host the 2015 Super Bowl at Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium.

Opponents of the bill contend that it will allow Arizona businesses to refuse service to homosexual customers.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.

Proponents of the bill claim that no, businesses will not have carte blanche to refuse service to anyone they disagree with based on religious grounds.

Specifically, proponents claim that there is nothing in Arizona’s current laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against anyone — and yet, strangely enough, discrimination isn’t happening.

Apparently, businesses in Arizona have wanted to discriminate but have just been waiting for a bill to allow them to do so — which this bill does not. Also, what business would quietly wait to discriminate?

“Business owners do not want to deny service to gays,” the Christian Post wrote. “This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive — turning away customers is no way to run a business.”

"Not reading the books doesn't mean I can't discuss them" - KC Native 3/14/14
”Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.”- Hillary Clinton 2000

I must have missed that post by Cannibal but he's one to talk about being abrasive with his penchant for name calling and insults. I treat others how they treat me. Lot of abrasive people here, so I give it back. I didn't start that way here.

What is sad is that religious freedom is considered "a controversial stand!"
This is happening in America!

It's interesting that on the one hand, you defend freedom, yet fully support that one group of people can be denied who knows what range of services based on a lifestyle choice. Isn't it governments business to stay out of people's personal lives? So again... Where do you draw that line? And does this lead to a slippery slope where businesses are now allowed to hide behind religious reasons to justify discrimination.

It's interesting that on the one hand, you defend freedom, yet fully support that one group of people can be denied who knows what range of services based on a lifestyle choice. Isn't it governments business to stay out of people's personal lives? So again... Where do you draw that line? And does this lead to a slippery slope where businesses are now allowed to hide behind religious reasons to justify discrimination.

You realize that we're talking about services provided by the private sector not government, right?

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

You realize that we're talking about services provided by the private sector not government, right?

If that were true then the business owner should refuse business and not have state legislatures get involved at all. Business owners aren't floating these bills, "Christian" Legislators are, they didn't have to get involved, they chose to. A business owner can refuse service to anyone, that has never changed, but they aren't stepping up and taking the heat for it. As long as the government is involved you can't really differentiate between the two.

If that were true then the business owner should refuse business and not have state legislatures get involved at all. Business owners aren't floating these bills, "Christian" Legislators are, they didn't have to get involved, they chose to. A business owner can refuse service to anyone, that has never changed, but they aren't stepping up and taking the heat for it. As long as the government is involved you can't really differentiate between the two.

The law simply memorializes the current state of affairs in anticipation of judicial decisions that could otherwise change the legal landscape. The goal of this law is to limit a future judicial decision mandating same-sex marriage to it's impact on the state government instead of letting it have more widespread effects by implication.

__________________

"I'll see you guys in New York." ISIS Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to US military personnel upon his release from US custody at Camp Bucca in Iraq during Obama's first year in office.

You mentioned "freedom" so it wasn't clear that you understood that denial of private sector services isn't an issue of freedom for the person seeking the services.

If this begins to extend into more basic goods and services, and God forbid, financial products, then it is absolutely limiting to one's freedom to have equal access to things based on a lifestyle choice that has nothing to do with the product being sold. If we are talking about wedding photography, fine. But this has potential to be far reaching to a frightening extent.

It's interesting that on the one hand, you defend freedom, yet fully support that one group of people can be denied who knows what range of services based on a lifestyle choice. Isn't it governments business to stay out of people's personal lives? So again... Where do you draw that line? And does this lead to a slippery slope where businesses are now allowed to hide behind religious reasons to justify discrimination.

I am still defending freedom here and you are NOT! I am defending religious freedom. You're confusing conflicting rights with denial of freedom.

So where do I draw that line? I draw the line for myself differently than I do when I am able to recognize that others have the right to act according to their standards or conscience when it comes to participating in an economic transaction. You're framing of the argument your way, or in a progressive frame, which is not my standard and you're setting it up to win. I already answered that there's plenty enough cake bakers and photographers who will still bake or photograph a gay wedding. There are not unlimited football leagues.

I try not to smear people with such labels if I can help it. I will say that it hadn't really occurred to me until this thread, but there does seem to be something of a unifying theme in her positions which bears keeping an eye on.

Let me put it this way -- her positions versus those of a bigot aren't really all that different, though she argues different ideological underpinnings for those positions. I find her position in this particular matter to be somewhat surprising.

I don't know what exactly BEP is, but I do clearly remember her stating that slavery was a good thing for blacks because it taught them skills and discipline.
I wouldn't necessarily say she dislikes or favors discrimination of black people, but statements like that and others makes me think she has some...let's say 'interesting' opinions.

Here's a podcast by an Austrian economist, Skip Oliva, showing how football is not really a private institution; how it's granted monopoly status with no other competing pro-leagues, subsidies and hook-ins with govt at every level leading to non-market distortion of prices with little dividing between govt and private left etc.

How leagues call their head executive "commissioner" which is a govt title. Private companies don't use that term. You don't have to agree with all of Lew's comments to get something out of it. The history is interesting, as regulation of sport began with Teddy Roosevelt.

I don't know what exactly BEP is, but I do clearly remember her stating that slavery was a good thing for blacks because it taught them skills and discipline.
I wouldn't necessarily say she dislikes or favors discrimination of black people, but statements like that and others makes me think she has some...let's say 'interesting' opinions.

Some might say yours are interesting, other would disagree. So, water is wet!